Op-Ed: McKenzie Cochran Case - Risks of In-House Security
Short on Time?
In August 2024, a jury in Pontiac, Michigan, swiftly acquitted three security guards of involuntary manslaughter in the 2014 death of McKenzie Cochran, a Black man who was restrained by security guards at Northland Mall. Cochran, who had an enlarged heart, had reportedly told a jewelry store owner that he wanted to kill someone, prompting the security response. During the confrontation, Cochran repeatedly told the guards, “I can’t breathe,” as they restrained him, ultimately leading to his death by asphyxiation. The case, which was initially closed without charges, was reopened by state prosecutors nearly a decade later. The jury deliberated for just about an hour before delivering the not-guilty verdicts, underscoring the complexities and legal risks associated with in-house security operations without clear Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs).
Corporations Setting Themselves Up for Civil Liability
PONTIAC, Mich, September 1, 2024 — In August 2024, a jury in Pontiac, Michigan, acquitted three security guards of involuntary manslaughter in the 2014 death of McKenzie Cochran at Northland Mall. Cochran, a 25-year-old Black man with an enlarged heart, tragically died after being restrained by mall security guards. The incident occurred after a jewelry store owner reported that Cochran had threatened to kill someone. During the confrontation, which involved five guards and was recorded on grainy mall video, Cochran repeatedly stated, “I can’t breathe,” as he was held to the ground. Despite his pleas, Cochran was handcuffed and left against a pillar while the guards awaited police and paramedics. His death was ultimately caused by asphyxiation.
The case, initially closed without charges, was reopened nearly a decade later by state prosecutors, leading to a weeklong trial. Defense attorneys argued that the guards were acting in self-defense and protecting mall patrons. The jury, consisting of eight women and four men, deliberated for approximately an hour before returning with not-guilty verdicts for the three guards: John Seiberling, Gaven King, and Aaron Maree.
This case highlights the severe legal and financial risks corporations face when employing in-house security without proper training and SOPs. The swift acquittal underscores the complexities involved in security operations, where inadequate procedures can lead to tragic outcomes and protracted legal battles. The Cochran case serves as a stark reminder of the dangers posed by insufficiently trained security personnel and the absence of comprehensive SOPs.
The security industry has established widely accepted SOPs that emphasize de-escalation techniques, appropriate use of force, and the legal limitations of a security guard’s authority.
The apparent absence of comprehensive SOPs was a critical factor in this tragic outcome. The guards lacked proper training and clear guidelines on how to handle the situation, particularly when Cochran repeatedly stated that he could not breathe. This case underscores the potential for severe legal and financial liabilities when corporations opt for in-house security solutions that fail to meet industry standards.
Understanding the Role of SOPs in Security Operations
Definition and Purpose
Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) are essential in security operations, providing detailed, written instructions that ensure uniformity and adherence to legal and ethical standards. SOPs guide security personnel through various scenarios, from making arrests to the use of force, ensuring that their actions remain within the bounds of the law. In the Cochran case, the absence of SOPs contributed significantly to the tragic outcome, as the guards lacked the necessary guidance to de-escalate the situation and avoid the use of excessive force.
Industry Standards and Best Practices
The security industry has long established SOPs that emphasize de-escalation techniques, appropriate use of force, and the legal limitations of a security guard’s authority. These procedures are designed to protect both the public and the security personnel, ensuring that all actions taken are legally defensible. In the Cochran case, the guards’ lack of adherence to these industry standards led to a preventable death, highlighting the dangers of operating without SOPs.
Legal Obligations and Regulatory Compliance
Federal and State Laws
Security guards are subject to a complex array of federal and state laws that govern their conduct, particularly concerning arrests and the use of force. These laws delineate the limits of a security guard’s authority and outline the legal consequences of overstepping these boundaries. In the McKenzie Cochran case, the guards’ actions—or inactions—could have been better guided by SOPs aligned with these legal requirements, potentially preventing the tragic outcome.
Importance of Compliance
Compliance with legal frameworks is not just a recommendation; it is a necessity. SOPs play a crucial role in ensuring that security personnel operate within legal boundaries, thereby reducing the risk of civil and criminal liabilities. The Cochran case exemplifies how the lack of SOPs can result in severe legal consequences, as the guards involved faced potential charges and the corporation employing them became embroiled in costly legal battles.
The Critical Legal Risks of Operating Without SOPs
The accompanying pie chart visually illustrates the significant legal risks that corporations face when operating without Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) in place for their security teams. Without clear guidelines, security personnel are more likely to engage in actions that could lead to allegations of negligence, excessive use of force, and false imprisonment. Each of these risks is a potential legal landmine, representing substantial financial and reputational consequences for the company involved. The chart highlights how negligence, often resulting from a lack of proper training and oversight, constitutes the largest portion of these risks. Excessive force, another critical concern, emerges when guards are not provided with clear protocols on appropriate responses, while false imprisonment becomes a threat in the absence of legal boundaries for detainment procedures. Together, these categories underscore the urgent need for robust SOPs to protect both the company and the public from preventable legal challenges.
Related Article
June 15, 2023 — Security Guards and Civil Suits: Here’s How These Common Lawsuits Work (El Dorado Insurance Agency)
The Risks of Operating Without SOPs
Legal Liability
Operating without SOPs exposes a corporation to significant legal liabilities. Without clear guidelines, security personnel may inadvertently act unlawfully, leading to lawsuits for negligence, false imprisonment, or assault. In the Cochran case, the lack of proper SOPs led to the use of excessive force, resulting in a tragic death and subsequent legal battles that could have been avoided with better training and clearer guidelines.
The liability of a security guard company extends beyond the individual actions of its guards. Civil suits can arise from incidents involving negligence, excessive force, or false imprisonment—all of which are preventable with robust SOPs. The Cochran case highlights the significant legal risks and liabilities that can arise when SOPs are absent, leaving both the guards and the corporation vulnerable to costly lawsuits.
Reputation Damage
Operating without SOPs can also severely damage a company’s reputation. The negative publicity surrounding the Cochran case illustrates how quickly a company’s image can be tarnished when security measures fail to protect the public effectively. In today’s digital age, where news spreads rapidly across social media, a single incident can lead to long-lasting damage to a company’s brand and public trust.
Financial Consequences
The financial impact of not having SOPs in place can be devastating. Legal fees, settlements, and increased insurance premiums can drain resources that could have been better allocated to proactive security measures. The Cochran case, involving lengthy legal battles and potential settlements, exemplifies the significant financial losses that can result from the absence of SOPs. Moreover, the long-term costs associated with a damaged reputation can far exceed the immediate financial penalties, as clients and customers lose trust in the corporation’s ability to ensure their safety.
The Role of SOPs in Preventing Excessive Use of Force
Definition of Excessive Force
Excessive force refers to the application of more force than necessary to accomplish a lawful purpose. In the security industry, the use of excessive force can lead to serious legal consequences, including criminal charges and civil suits. The Cochran case clearly demonstrates how the absence of SOPs can lead to the use of excessive force, resulting in a fatal outcome that could have been avoided with proper guidelines and training.
Preventive Measures
Clearly defined SOPs are crucial in preventing the use of excessive force. These procedures provide security personnel with guidelines on assessing situations, applying appropriate levels of force, and de-escalating confrontations. In Cochran’s case, the failure to reposition him when he repeatedly stated he couldn’t breathe highlighted the need for SOPs that emphasize reassessment and adjustment of tactics. Had such procedures been in place and followed, Cochran’s life might have been saved.
Arrest Procedures Without SOPs
Authority and Limitations
Security guards typically do not possess the same authority as police officers to make arrests. SOPs are essential in delineating the legal boundaries within which security personnel can operate. Without these guidelines, guards may overstep their authority, leading to accusations of false arrest and severe legal consequences. The Cochran case, where the lack of clear arrest procedures contributed to a fatal outcome, highlights the risks of operating without proper SOPs.
RELATED: Fact Check: Do Security Guards Need to Read Miranda Rights When Questioning a Shoplifting Suspect?
Risks of Improper Arrests
Improper arrests can lead to civil lawsuits for false imprisonment, a serious legal charge that can result in substantial financial penalties and reputational damage. The Cochran case serves as a cautionary tale: the absence of clear arrest procedures escalated the situation, resulting in a tragic death and significant legal consequences. Corporations that employ in-house security without SOPs are essentially placing their guards—and themselves—in harm’s way, opening the door to potentially devastating legal repercussions.
Developing and Implementing Effective SOPs
Steps to Create SOPs
Creating comprehensive SOPs involves conducting a thorough risk assessment, consulting with legal experts, and drawing on industry best practices. These SOPs should cover all aspects of security operations, from arrest procedures to the use of force and incident reporting. The Cochran case underscores the importance of SOPs tailored to the specific needs and risks of the environment in which they are applied. Without such procedures, security personnel are left to rely on their own judgment in high-pressure situations—an approach that, as the Cochran case shows, can have fatal consequences.
Training and Enforcement
Once SOPs are developed, they must be effectively communicated to all security personnel through rigorous training programs. Continuous monitoring and enforcement of these SOPs are also critical to ensure consistent application in the field. The failure to adequately train and enforce SOPs in the Cochran case contributed to the tragic outcome, emphasizing the need for ongoing education and compliance checks. Corporations must recognize that simply having SOPs on paper is not enough; these procedures must be actively implemented and reinforced through regular training and oversight.
Updating SOPs
The security landscape is constantly evolving, and so too must the SOPs that govern it. Companies must regularly review and update their SOPs to reflect new legal requirements, emerging threats, and lessons learned from past incidents. The Cochran case is a poignant reminder that SOPs should never be static; they must evolve to meet the changing demands of security operations. By continuously updating their SOPs, corporations can ensure that their security personnel are prepared to handle the challenges of today’s complex security environment.
Summary of Key Points
The McKenzie Cochran case highlights the critical importance of comprehensive SOPs in security operations. These procedures not only protect individuals but also shield companies from legal and financial liabilities. By failing to implement and enforce SOPs, corporations expose themselves to significant risks. It is imperative for security companies and corporations to prioritize the development and consistent enforcement of SOPs to safeguard their operations and ensure the safety of all involved.
Call to Action for Security Companies
Security companies and corporations must prioritize the creation and enforcement of SOPs. These procedures are not only a legal safeguard but also a moral obligation to ensure the safety and security of everyone involved. Investing in proper training, regularly updating SOPs, and ensuring compliance can help prevent the severe consequences of negligence. The tragic death of McKenzie Cochran should serve as a wake-up call to all corporations: the cost of neglecting SOPs is far greater than the investment required to develop and implement them.
Citations:
Reference: El Dorado Insurance. (2023). Security Guards and Civil Suits: Here’s How These Common Lawsuits Work. Retrieved from https://www.eldoradoinsurance.com/security-industry-news/security-guards-and-civil-suits-heres-how-these-common-lawsuits-work/.
Legal Citation: Former Northland Mall Security Guards Found Not Guilty in Connection to 2014 Death, Michigan Attorney General, August 23, 2024, https://www.michigan.gov/ag/news/press-releases/2024/08/23/former-northland-mall-security-guards-found-not-guilty-in-connection-to-2014-death.
Industry Guidelines: Freeman, D. (2024). Court: No Insurance Coverage for Security Guard Attack on Customer. South Florida Injury Lawyers Blog. Retrieved from https://www.southfloridainjurylawyersblog.com/court-no-insurance-coverage-for-security-guard-attack-on-customer/
Fox 2 Detroit Article: Northland Mall Guards Found Not Guilty of All Charges, Fox 2 Detroit, April 4, 2014, https://www.fox2detroit.com/news/northland-mall-guards-found-not-guilty-all-charges.
El Paso Inc. Article: Expert Defends Security Guards in Death of Man at Detroit-Area Mall a Decade Ago, El Paso Inc., June 22, 2024, https://www.elpasoinc.com/expert-defends-security-guards-in-death-of-man-at-detroit-area-mall-a-decade-ago/article_cda85ff2-9b58-5937-8734-c666c1c96c6d.html.
South Florida Injury Lawyers Blog: Court: No Insurance Coverage for Security Guard Attack on Customer, South Florida Injury Lawyers Blog, January 18, 2024, https://www.southfloridainjurylawyersblog.com/court-no-insurance-coverage-for-security-guard-attack-on-customer/.
Justia Case Law: Estate of Miller v. Storey, 2018 WI 95, 383 Wis. 2d 595, 916 N.W.2d 800, https://law.justia.com/cases/wisconsin/supreme-court/2018/2015ap002356.html.
About the Author
Michael Evans is the founder of USPA Nationwide Security, established in 2005. He served as CEO for nearly 17 years before retiring in 2021. In the summer of 2022, Evans returned to USPA on a contract basis as the Strategic Advisor to the CEO, leveraging his extensive expertise in the security industry.
Evans founded and led Blueline Capital as president. From 2006 to 2018, he was instrumental in writing Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for hundreds of security guard companies, setting industry standards and ensuring compliance across diverse operations. He also served as the CEO of USPA Technologies and Panic Room USA.
